Things marked with an X need to be fixed.
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X specfile name matches %{name}
. the specfile needs to be isorelax.spec
X verify source and patches
. we need to add the following:
# mkdir isorelax-release-20050331-src
# cd isorelax-release-20050331-src
# cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@iso-relax.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \
# export -r release-20050331 src lib
# cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@iso-relax.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \
# co -r release-20050331 build.xml
# cd ..
# tar cjf isorelax-release-20050331-src.tar.bz2 isorelax-release-20050331-src
X the description should be fixed to not be from the author's point of view
X correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- this won't hold up the review, though, as there's currently a discussion
regarding buildroots going on
X release tag
. we need to fix the release tag to be of the form
0.Z.<tag>.Xjpp.Y%{?dist}
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
. upstream does not include their license in CVS
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on isorelax srpm gives this output
W: isorelax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
. can be ignored
W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-obsoletes isorelax-bootstrap
W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-provides isorelax-bootstrap
. I think we should just remove those virtual obsoletes/provides as they've
never been shipped in Fedora.
W: isorelax setup-not-quiet
. I think it's the cat. That should just be in a comment, I think.
E: isorelax no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
. add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the beginning of %install
W: isorelax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 38)
. the easiest way to fix this is to run with emacs and do M-x untabify
* changelog is in acceptable format
* Packager tag should not be used
X Vendor tag should not be used
. remove Vendor
. remove Distribution
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
? BuildRequires are proper
. I'm not sure about this one. I guess we should verify if one of the
packages that BRs this builds okay.
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
* no static libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no need for a -devel sub-package?
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no locale data
* package is not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean is present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a webapp
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* final provides and requires are sane:
X rpmlint on the binary RPMs:
. package doesn't build on i386
11. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java
(at line 15)
public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract
method DocumentBuilderFactory.setFeature(String, boolean)
----------
12. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java
(at line 15)
public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract
method DocumentBuilderFactory.getFeature(String)
SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
. upstream does not do this
X package should build on i386
. nope (see above)
X package should build in mock
. didn't try

Fixed spec and SRPM:
> ? BuildRequires are proper
> . I'm not sure about this one. I guess we should verify if one of the
> packages that BRs this builds okay.
I still think this should be done.
> X rpmlint on the binary RPMs:
> . package doesn't build on i386
Fixed.

Most of it is okay. I found the following issues:
- License file is not present in the rpm, it should be, and marked %doc
- javadoc directory should be marked %doc
- Line 5 in %install is > 80 characters